Memory Alpha:Category suggestions
=Provisional categories= * Category talk:Slang * Category talk:Terminology =Suggested categories= In-universe categories Starship classes move Move all Category:Starship classes to Category:Spacecraft classes, or if we feel so inclined, "spacecraft types" vs. "classes." This applies to the subcategories, and is based on changes implemented at Category talk:Spacecraft. This move is based on the analysis that not all vessel classes listed in "starship classes" are starship classes... While making this move, it would probably be a good idea to create a new subcategory for Category:Federation starship classes, nay, Category:Federation spacecraft classes called Category:Federation shuttle classes (or "types") as there are several. --Alan 21:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC) * I don't see a problem creating separate classes for spacecraft classes and types. I'm not sure if it's entirely necessary, though. "Spacecraft classes" doesn't sound very good, though... maybe "ship classes"? Eh, then I'd guess we'd have to include non-starfaring ships. Anyway, I support the cat move and creation of the sub-cat. --From Andoria with Love 21:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC) * I like "ship classes", and if there are not starfaring ships in that list, we can break them into a separate sub-category quite easily. -- Sulfur 02:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC) Homeworlds I'm not so much into the whole category thing, but I was surprised that no Category:Homeworlds exists as of yet, it seems extremely useful, and was also suggested as part of several complex "category tree" suggestions here. Anyway, my rationale: this would most logically be implemented as a subcategory of Category:Planets and I guess there would be more than enough candidates for the category. (in fact, I'm volunteering myself to boldly go seeking out homeworlds on MA and tagging them as such). Capricorn 06:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC) :I'm not totally convinced of this as yet... Perhaps coming up with a list and putting it on your userpage or as a subpage of such might help give an idea of the actual numbers? If it does pass, I would agree to it being a subcategory, and would suggest that it replace the planet category on the article. -- Sulfur 16:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC) ::If that category replaces Category:Planets on homeworld pages, that would break Planets (formerly a list article listing all planets by name, now a redirect to the planet category which is still supposed to have the same functionality). Alternatives would be making the suggested category an additional one (with all the problems of duplicate categorization we already discussed elsewhere), or starting this as a list of homeworlds on Homeworlds (which, I just found that out by previewing this comment, already exists. Wow). -- Cid Highwind 17:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC) Wouldn't your worries about breaking functionality be more or less solved just simply by making "homeworlds" a subcategory? I agree that double classification is messy, which is why some more or less arbitrary lists on MA like First planets, Planets in the Delphic Expanse, Romulan planets, etc would not be good subcategories, but there are definatly subcategories that could work. For example, if next to a "homeworld" subcategory you add subcategories for "colonies" and "uninhabited planets", there (baring perhaps some odd cases) would be zero overlap, and the list would not only not lose functionality, but actualy gain some, as they are now categorised by some very basic and very usefull key characteristics. (note that this is not an expansion of the proposal, but rather a weird attempt at trying to explain my vision of how this could enhance MA). On a sidenote, thanks for pointing out the Homeworlds page, can't believe I missed that while researching this, but it will make for the perfect consolidation should this category not be created :). And sulfur, I guess that page will adress your doubts about the numbers too. -- Capricorn 04:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC) ::I was more thinking about the alphabetical list of all planets that now exists. What, if someone is looking for a planet he only knows part of the name of? Right now, it would be one lookup in the central "planets" list - then, it would be a lookup in 3-4 lists. Also, part of my "breaking functionality" concern was regarding the possible use of DPLs (see: Forum:DPL extension to generate lists, I even used the "planets" category there as an example). Maybe there's a way to make sense of a categorization as both "planet" and "homeworld", but I'm not sure of that at the moment... -- Cid Highwind 09:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC) Category:Religious leaders Based on my examples in the nomination for the Category:Religious figures, I think what I really meant for that category to be was for feared or revered gods, and prophets, angels, and other Biblical (or related text) figures, not Kai Winn or Jimmy Swaggert. I think something like Category:Religious leaders might be a good division point. --Alan del Beccio 21:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC) : So, let me get this straight... "figures" would be for gods, angels, etc. Leaders for those who lead churches (ie, the pope, etc...). What about various Vedeks? Would they fall into that category? If so, I can see that being useful. We could even possibly break them off into a subcategory of "Bajoran Religious Leaders" -- Sulfur 02:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC) Basically. The term "church leader" can be used to describe your local "priest", "pastor" or whatever else isnt coming to mind at the moment, like I often hear on the news, "Such and such local religious leaders did this or that today...". --Alan del Beccio 23:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC) Security and identification technology Two categories, similar topic: I've noticed several articles, many uncategorized, all on a related topic, including thumbscan, retinal scan, identification card, identity tape, authorization code, security clearance, ration card, transport card, transit pass, chess code, and I'm sure there are others. Since these are all security related concepts, perhaps broaden this idea and make identification a sub-category of a larger Security technology, for stuff like listening devices and so forth. --Alan del Beccio 21:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC) * Works for me. I can see a top level "Security" with an "ID technology" sub-category. -- Sulfur 02:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC) * Yep, me too. -- Renegade54 14:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC) Events, missions, projects and expeditions We have several events, missions, projects and expeditions, but I cannot think of a unilateral term to encompass them all. Here is the list, compiled from : Arias Expedition, Axanar Peace Mission, Bolian Operation, Fornax Disaster, Great Diaspora, Operation Lovely Angel, Operation Retrieve, Operation Watson, Pathfinder Project, Particle Fountain Project, shakedown cruise, Vulcan reunification, Vulcanian expedition, Xindi reunification. --Alan del Beccio 21:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC) *Good call, but I have no idea on a single name, either. Maybe the items you list are still too diverse to be listed under one category? "Mission" could probably encompass all those "Operations", but "Project"? Not sure... -- Cid Highwind 00:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC) *I like this, too, but don't know what to call it either. -- Renegade54 14:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC) *I like this idea as well, perhaps calling it "Events"? Perhaps the category of Military Conflicts should be a subcategory of it, or at least this new category should be clearly defined as being nonmilitary.--31dot 15:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC) *I support creating an events category, with military conflicts (and any other applicable existing cats) as subcategories.– Cleanse 23:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC) Shapeshifting Species To be based on Shapeshifting species. It is a fairly common phenomenon in Trek, with about 14 species listed on that page. – Cleanse 01:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC) Starfleet divisions I was looking at Sciences division and command division and operations division and noticed none of them had a category so what about a Category:Starfleet divisions, unless there is some other category they belong in.--UESPA 19:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC) :Perhaps they could go under Agencies? Groups? I'm neutral on this right now, I'mnot convinced yet that these three need a seperate category.--31dot 20:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC) What about as a sub category of Agencies?--UESPA 23:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC) ::Or Category:Starfleet? Question is, what do you want to put in these categories? The officers who served in these divisions? In that case Category:Starfleet personnel could be thinned by placing those individuals into smaller categories. --Alan del Beccio 23:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC) :::I'm thinking that the original idea for this category was to simply place the divisions withing their own category(please correct me if I am wrong), but I could see dividing the Starfleet personnel up by category. I'm not sure if that would be another issue, though. Responding to the above, I could see it as a subcategory of Starfleet.--31dot 23:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC) ::::With only three divisions, I don't think the divisions need their own category or even sub-category. Category:Starfleet would be a good place for it, methinks; after all, Starfleet division is already placed there. --From Andoria with Love 23:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC) Psychology Category:Psychology for all the psionic, psycho- and other mind-reading/thought-based oddities in the Star Trek verse. Psychotricorder, mind meld, ESP, exopsychologist. Probably, if I have time for it, coinciding with a proper rewrite of Psychology. -- Harry ''talk'' 09:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC) : I took a stab at the article. I support creation of category. Am pretty sure there are several other "Sciences" that have sufficient material to make their own categories as well. --Alan 09:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC) More starship class subcategories Not sure if we want to do like we did with Category:Individuals and put every known ship class into its own species/government subcategory or not, but for starters I believe there are enough ships of a particular species/government to warrant the following categories: * Category:Andorian starship classes (5 classes) * Category:Dominion starship classes (4 classes) * Category:Kazon starship classes (5 classes) --> or Trabe, if you want to get technical. * Category:Orion starship classes (7 classes) * Category:Son'a starship classes (4 classes) * Category:Suliban starship classes (5 classes) * Category:Tellarite starship classes (5 classes) * Category:Yridian starship classes (4 classes) * --Alan 09:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC) :Sounds good.– Cleanse talk 11:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC) Warp technology What about a Category:Warp technology considering that there is so much information dealing with warp technology and at least a couple don't have categories.--UESPA 18:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC) Production POV categories Maintenance categories Sub-categories for Category:Memory Alpha images Locations *Category:Memory Alpha images (locations), for images of compartments aboard starships and space stations like the Image:NX Sickbay.jpg, also for images like Image:RuraPentheMine2293.jpg, which could possibly be put under Category: Memory Alpha images (planets), but not really. Deevolution 23:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC) : Okay, but in addition, what if we went with Category: Memory Alpha images (landscapes) for planet-side matte images, etc...--Alan 08:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC) ::Category: Memory Alpha images (exteriors) and Category: Memory Alpha images (interiors)? That way we can do space scenery as well? Deevolution 07:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC) :::I think that we might even be able to break this down a bit better, such as: :::* Locations :::** Building Interiors :::** Spaceship Interiors :::** Space vistas :::** Landscapes :::This seems to cover all of the things noted above. Not the perfect names, more trying to get what they might contain. "Locations" should be the "catch-all", building interiors and spaceship interiors split those up rather than just munging them all together as one. Space vistas allows for exterior shots of space, and landscapes for planet-side exterior shots. Thoughts? -- Sulfur 16:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC) Game Cover breakdown Currently we have a game covers image category. We have sufficient amounts that I'd like to suggest breaking them down into three subcategories: * Category:Memory Alpha images (board game covers) * Category:Memory Alpha images (rpg covers) * Category:Memory Alpha images (video game covers) There are 100+ images in the category itself, and, while the board game category will be the smallest, the other two will have 30+ images in each. -- Sulfur 18:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC) Comic Cover breakdown We currently have 400+ images in the comic covers category. This seems a little excessive to me. I would suggest breaking these down into categories by company as such: * Category:Memory Alpha images (DC comic book covers) ** Category:Memory Alpha images (DC TOS comic book covers) ** Category:Memory Alpha images (DC TNG comic book covers) ** Category:Memory Alpha images (WildStorm comic book covers) * Category:Memory Alpha images (Gold Key comic book covers) * Category:Memory Alpha images (IDW comic book covers) * Category:Memory Alpha images (Malibu comic book covers) * Category:Memory Alpha images (Marvel comic book covers) * Category:Memory Alpha images (Tokyopop comic book covers) I considered breaking them down by TOS/TNG/VOY/etc, but there are a number that do not fall into any of those categories, and a number that fall into multiple categories, and I don't know if having so many categories on each image is really all that useful. Note that DC was split into three sub-categories. WildStorm is a special imprint of DC that act(ed) as a separate company (for all intents and purposes -- but it could go into the upper level too...), and there are so many DC images that it only makes sense to split them into TOS and TNG (as those were the two lines they published). -- Sulfur 19:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC) : Support--Tim Thomason 03:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)